Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

190013Re: A new direction in loglangs?

Expand Messages
  • Logan Kearsley
    Aug 2, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      On 2 August 2012 09:24, And Rosta <and.rosta@...> wrote:
      > Logan Kearsley, On 01/08/2012 21:17:
      >> On 1 August 2012 06:33, Alex Fink<000024@...> wrote:
      >>> On Thu, 26 Jul 2012 15:58:56 -0600, Logan
      >>> Kearsley<chronosurfer@...> wrote:
      >>>> One of the things that has always bugged me about Palno being based on
      >>>> predicate calculus is the awkwardity of adverb constructions.
      >>> The first way I would think to handle these classes (in fact, what
      >>> we do in UNLWS) is as predicates whose argument is the Davidsonian
      >>> event argument for the verb (there's a word I've learned from
      >>> And).
      >> That's effectively what Palno so far has always done. Rather than
      >> explicitly stating a Davidsonian event argument, though (which would
      >> seem to me rather Lojbanish),
      > Why Lojbanish? The Lojban method is clunkier than the Palno--Liva or the
      > Livagico-UNLWS systems: it uses a dyadic predicate, _nu_, "x1 is the event
      > of x2", where x2 is syntactically and semantically a predication.

      Well, yes, that's precisely what I meant. Palno does not explicitly
      state the Davidsonian, while Lojban does (or at least, can). Thus, if
      Palno did so, I would find it to be rather Lojbanish.

      >> the event argument is equivalent to the
      >> implicit return value of a non-top-level predicate. That's what allows
      >> nesting such that the result of one predicate can be the argument of
      >> another.
      >> Many of the existing problems with Palno (like correctly handling
      >> relative clauses) stem from manipulating that return value so that
      >> it's something *other* than the Davidsonian. E.g., top-level
      >> predicates have to actually be logical predicates that assert a truth
      >> value, like "there exists e such that e satisfies this predicate",
      >> rather than the bare argument value itself, "some e such that e
      >> satisfies this predicate".
      > I don't see why the top-level case is a problem: you could say that the
      > syntactic predication returns an event argument, as usual, and that there is
      > an implicit quantifier binding it. (In the case of Livagian, implicit
      > narrow-scope existential quantification is the default for all arguments; I
      > expect UNLWS is the same.)

      That is essentially the interpretation that I do use, most of the
      time. The trouble with it is that it results in an asymmetry in the
      interpretation of top-level vs. embedded clauses, which means that the
      interpretation of a clause can change if an additional clause is built
      around it (e.g., if adverbials are added), and structures are then
      needed to specify when an embedded clause actually is intended to
      return a truth value rather than an event. I would much prefer

    • Show all 9 messages in this topic